Financial remedies case must be reheard following mistake regarding one of wife’s assets

When a judge decides a financial remedies case they obviously do so by reference to the facts of the case as they understand them. Accordingly, before making their decision they must first make findings as to what the facts are.

But what if a finding is based upon mistaken evidence? In such a situation one party may find that the award they receive is considerably less that it would have been if there had been no mistake. What that party can do to remedy the situation was demonstrated by a recent Court of Appeal case.

The case concerned a husband’s appeal against a financial remedies order, on the grounds that the wife’s mistaken evidence had led the judge to believe that she had less money available to pay the husband than was actually the case. (Please note that, for the sake of clarity, we have considerably simplified the facts of the case.)

One of the wife’s assets was a property in Singapore, which potentially could have been sold to raise funds to pay off the husband. However, the wife gave evidence to the court to the effect that if the property were sold then most of the proceeds would have had to be repaid to an investment fund, which the wife could not access until she reached the age of 65.

Accordingly, the property was effectively not available to the wife to raise funds to pay the husband, and this was found as a fact by the judge.

The judge also found that the wife would need some £183,000 to buy out the husband’s half share in the former matrimonial home in England (in which the wife and child of the family were living), comprising £88,000 for the husband’s half share, and £95,000 to pay off the mortgage.

But the judge found that the wife could not afford that sum, and accordingly awarded the husband just £55,000.

Following this decision the husband discovered that the wife would in fact be able to access the proceeds of sale of the property in Singapore, meaning that she had a further £325,000 available to her. The husband therefore appealed.

The appeal was initially dismissed, but the husband appealed against that dismissal, to the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal held that the husband’s new evidence regarding the investment fund should be admitted, so that the case could be determined on the true facts. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and the case was remitted for rehearing.

You can read the full report of the case here.

*          *          *

Family Law Cafe gives you the best strategy to achieve the right outcome for you and your family and keeps them informed and in control 24/7 through a unique and secure online portal. Family Law Cafe is your start-point for getting matters sorted with strategy, support and security.

Image: Prostock-studio / Shutterstock.com